Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

We do this throw as part of our kihon in Roland Hernaez's Nihon Taijutsu. But then again, Nihon Taijutsu is a descendant of Mochizuki's Yoseikan. I don't know the name of the technique (maybe you can help me here), but it's certainly not Ganseki Otoshi. What I understand for Ganseki Otoshi is the Iwama Ryu version of it, with uke's back laying on tori's shoulders.

I previously pointed out that we call it ganseki otoshi, and it was different from the ganseki otoshi from Daito ryu, which we don't do.

Not sure why you require caps to get your point across, but the reality is that common sense is not as common as some may think. Are you saying that one does not get into self defence situations with people who are intoxicated?

Because I want to clearly state that it is common sense. There is a big difference to someone on a stimulant like PCP, as apposed to someone on a depressant like alcohol. I will clearly point out that I see three levels of techniques, basics, self defence, and fighting. If someone is juiced up on PCP you can't simply defend yourself against them, as they will keep coming and coming. To me this is a fight, and in a fight pain compliance is not good enough, because someone out there is tough enough to take it.

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:

Why not? I thought the philosophy espoused in Aikido is to protect the attacker. The "kill him if he tries to kill me" is a fear-driven response that is the antithesis of Aikido imho (although it may be a necessary one sometimes). If one has the level of skill to control the situation I don't see why one should not. It would make for interesting post-assault legalities when asked why one decided to use excessive force if they had the situation under control at a certain point. Many talk about killing in "self defence" without realizing the ramifications involved at many levels. This is part of why martial arts are not always the best means of studying actual self defence, unless ones instructor can impart knowledge in these areas also.

This maybe part of some peoples Aikido philosophy... But not everyone's. Aikido is a martial art after all. Chiba Shihan stated that we should know how to kill but choose no to! At my school we always talk about the legal ramifications. When the laws changed to allow the use of more force in home defence, we discussed it. We have police officers and security personnel so we make sure knowledge is shared and disseminated from reliable sources.

Also, I did not state that you should kill someone who is trying to kill you. But if we go to an extreme, which is where our ideas need to be tested, we can really see what happens. If we are in a war, on a battle field, M16/AK47 in hand, what does your martial arts training tell you about the people coming at you shooting to kill?

The approach in Budo is that we should strive to stop the fight before it happens. But this is not achieved by rolling over. It is done by training to fight, for real, when push comes to shove. In our current world it is even more real when people in charge of governments and regimes are extremists and they as individuals can choose to do things that we would not want, but which we have to deal with the consequences of.

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:

I'd think if one were dealing with a friend one with sufficient training would not respond at all and simply walk away. What you describe above is not a self defence situation requireing a direct physical response imho.

I have been in situations as a young boy, were I had no choice but to respond. Some people like to push you around, as they learnt that they could do this in high school, or were ever, and they got what they wanted, submissive respect. To people like this, who I did not say were friends, but maybe friends of friends, a finger lock will soon teach a valuable lesson in humility that they never got as a child. This is what happened with the friend of my wife's sister's husband. A situation where someone thought that they could push me around, and a finger lock soon fixed the problem. No harm, no foul. If people simply walk away, then there will be other victims for the bully. Mochizuki Kancho taught us that you deal with bullying by educating the victims, not by trying to fix the bullies.

@ Graham:
What I understand from your last posts is that you call Gyaku Te Seoi Nage what we call Yama Arashi, and that you call Ganseki Otoshi to the "mixture" between Ippon Seoi Nage and Gyaku Te Seoi Nage (both arms barred). But then you say you don't practice Daito Ryu's version of Ganseki Otoshi, which is the very same technique (as seen in the video Demetrio posted before). I'm sorry, but there must be something I'm not understanding well -surely because of my bad English.-

One more question. Your Gyaku Te Seoi Nage includes the lapel grab/choke?

Sorry about all these nomenclature questions, but different people call same techniques different names, and sometimes I just get lost.

If people simply walk away, then there will be other victims for the bully. Mochizuki Kancho taught us that you deal with bullying by educating the victims, not by trying to fix the bullies.

Mochizuki Kancho has a very good point, however I'm trying to see where his words and your example of "teaching" the bully a "lesson" (as in the finger lock case) coincide. Imho when one decides to start "teaching lessons" to bullies one is often not very far from becoming a bully oneself if not careful. It is impossible to protect all potential victims of the bully unless one removes the bully from existence. The question is - does Budo training give one the right to become protector of those perceived to be "weak" and judge over those perceived to be "deviant"?

@ Graham:
What I understand from your last posts is that you call Gyaku Te Seoi Nage what we call Yama Arashi, and that you call Ganseki Otoshi to the "mixture" between Ippon Seoi Nage and Gyaku Te Seoi Nage (both arms barred). But then you say you don't practice Daito Ryu's version of Ganseki Otoshi, which is the very same technique (as seen in the video Demetrio posted before). I'm sorry, but there must be something I'm not understanding well -surely because of my bad English.-

In my last post I only referenced the image, I did not even look at the vids.

Quote:

Alejandro Villanueva wrote:

One more question. Your Gyaku Te Seoi Nage includes the lapel grab/choke?

N0t sure I understand this. We just hold onto the arm. If we bar the arm across the opposite shoulder then we call it soto seoi nage (outside shoulder throw).

Mochizuki Kancho has a very good point, however I'm trying to see where his words and your example of "teaching" the bully a "lesson" (as in the finger lock case) coincide. Imho when one decides to start "teaching lessons" to bullies one is often not very far from becoming a bully oneself if not careful. It is impossible to protect all potential victims of the bully unless one removes the bully from existence. The question is - does Budo training give one the right to become protector of those perceived to be "weak" and judge over those perceived to be "deviant"?

I said we educate the victims. As a result the bullies will learn that they can not bully. I said if someone chooses to assault you, which is what shoving is, then a finger lock, which gives mild pain, while the lock is on, is a justifiable response. You as the defender should not then go out of you way to inflict unnecessary pain, or humiliate the attacker. The goal is for them to develop humility; the end result should not leave any bitter feelings. This is the goal of Aikido. Your opponent should be your friend.

So then it's not the same throw that's shown in the picture. That throw, Yama Arashi, is done by grabing the lapel too.

But I think I get your point in nomenclature. Thanks anyway...

I see the lapel grab. This would not change the name from Gyaku Te Seoi Nage (Reverse Hand Shoulder Throw). I think you would agree that this is by definition a Seoi Nage, a throw off the back, but the exact name given to any technique just depends on the individual.

I see the lapel grab. This would not change the name from Gyaku Te Seoi Nage (Reverse Hand Shoulder Throw). I think you would agree that this is by definition a Seoi Nage, a throw off the back, but the exact name given to any technique just depends on the individual.

Completely agree. Same techniques, different names. It happens all the time. Of course it has Seoi Nage in it, but then Iwama's Ganseki Otoshi is a throw off the back...

Oops, I fat fingered and typed incorrectly. It's wasn't my intention to make a generalization. Rather it's more important to bring about the forgotten COMBAT nature of Aikido that Shioda, Mochizuki and
Isoyama preserved. Clearly Aikido is budo to some and not to others. We can respect and accept what ever path a person takes with there Aikido.

I think most folks don't understand what you mean by Combat. Hopefully you'll explain yourself a little bit better so it does not sound like you have Shodan disease. Shoji Nishio Shihan thought highly of Isoyama Shihan and though I have looked hard I can't find anything to suggest that Isoyama Shihan emphasized the Combat Nature of Aikido. A Martial Art is either effective against other Martial Arts or it isn't. That is the sole criteria of Budo

Combat involves Automatic Weapons High Explosives and Collateral Damage. It's about destroying your enemy. In the Traditonal Bushido view any Martial Contest that involved surrender or letting your opponent live was not acceptable and would bring shame upon both the victor and the one he defeated.

If you're into Aikido to learn about it's "Combat" applications thats ok for a while. But there is much more to Aikido than that and you're cutting yourself short in my view.

Combat involves Automatic Weapons High Explosives and Collateral Damage. It's about destroying your enemy. In the Traditonal Bushido view any Martial Contest that involved surrender or letting your opponent live was not acceptable and would bring shame upon both the victor and the one he defeated.

If you're into Aikido to learn about it's "Combat" applications thats ok for a while. But there is much more to Aikido than that and you're cutting yourself short in my view.

William Hazen

To follow up on this thought (thanks for the springboard, William.) Studying Aikido for it's 'Combat' applicatons only would be a bit like going to graduate school to learn spelling. Sure, you gotta learn it, but what about the rest of the universe (as in university).

To follow up on this thought (thanks for the springboard, William.) Studying Aikido for it's 'Combat' applicatons only would be a bit like going to graduate school to learn spelling. Sure, you gotta learn it, but what about the rest of the universe (as in university).

The problem with that analogy is that one would assume that a graduate student had decent (or at least passable) spelling to get where they were. Many people come to Aikido without any other martial skills. To steal your analogy, it would be like entering into a Physics PhD without any knowledge of Mathematics. It's my belief that valid martial techniques must form the basis for any deeper insights to be honestly earned from Aikido. All of the pre-war (and most of the post-war) greats came to Aikido with a foundation in Judo. This formed the underlying structure for their exploration of Aikido.

The problem with that analogy is that one would assume that a graduate student had decent (or at least passable) spelling to get where they were. Many people come to Aikido without any other martial skills. To steal your analogy, it would be like entering into a Physics PhD without any knowledge of Mathematics. It's my belief that valid martial techniques must form the basis for any deeper insights to be honestly earned from Aikido. All of the pre-war (and most of the post-war) greats came to Aikido with a foundation in Judo. This formed the underlying structure for their exploration of Aikido.

No problem. I thought I stated that, "Sure, you gotta learn it". Thanks for the clarification.

But aikido was not a pre-war art (ok, I know this is a point of contention for some). At that time it was a 'combat form'. After O'Sensei's realization the lessons and the purpose and the name changed. Now it can be used as a method of uniting us with the powers of nature and to integrate us into harmony with nature. By training ( strong training) we can follow forms that not only make us 'combat ready' for the trials of the new world ( enviromental wars and trials, etc.) but innovators of healthful ways of living based on the insights of training.

But aikido was not a pre-war art (ok, I know this is a point of contention for some).

But OSensei retired in 1942. As far as I can tell, what OSensei was doing later in life was not so different from what he did early in his Daito Ryu studies. If you look at those people who he had daily post-war influence in (Saito, Isoyama) it looks a lot like the stuff he was doing in the 1930's. Saito would frequently show students at seminars the Noma dojo photos (published as "Budo") to demonstrate how he had not changed OSensei's teachings. I received my shodan from Minouru Kurita Sensei, who was one of (if not the) last uchideshi to OSensei. It's my understanding that he spent a large part of that period with OSensei in Iwama. Not surprisingly, his line of Aikido looks a lot like Saito Sensei's.

Now if you look at what most of us think of as post-war Aikido, you see a lot more influence from many of the Hombu dojo instructors like Yamaguchi Sensei, Tohei Sensei and the nidai Doshu than you do from OSensei directly.

O'Sensei's art did not change as much as so many people claim from pre to post war. Budo and Saito Sensei's commentary and use of this book as a reference in seminars, when it was written in 1938, is proof of this.

But OSensei retired in 1942. As far as I can tell, what OSensei was doing later in life was not so different from what he did early in his Daito Ryu studies. If you look at those people who he had daily post-war influence in (Saito, Isoyama) it looks a lot like the stuff he was doing in the 1930's. Saito would frequently show students at seminars the Noma dojo photos (published as "Budo") to demonstrate how he had not changed OSensei's teachings. I received my shodan from Minouru Kurita Sensei, who was one of (if not the) last uchideshi to OSensei. It's my understanding that he spent a large part of that period with OSensei in Iwama. Not surprisingly, his line of Aikido looks a lot like Saito Sensei's.

Now if you look at what most of us think of as post-war Aikido, you see a lot more influence from many of the Hombu dojo instructors like Yamaguchi Sensei, Tohei Sensei and the nidai Doshu than you do from OSensei directly.

But OSensei retired in 1942. As far as I can tell, what OSensei was doing later in life was not so different from what he did early in his Daito Ryu studies. If you look at those people who he had daily post-war influence in (Saito, Isoyama) it looks a lot like the stuff he was doing in the 1930's. Saito would frequently show students at seminars the Noma dojo photos (published as "Budo") to demonstrate how he had not changed OSensei's teachings. I received my shodan from Minouru Kurita Sensei, who was one of (if not the) last uchideshi to OSensei. It's my understanding that he spent a large part of that period with OSensei in Iwama. Not surprisingly, his line of Aikido looks a lot like Saito Sensei's.

Now if you look at what most of us think of as post-war Aikido, you see a lot more influence from many of the Hombu dojo instructors like Yamaguchi Sensei, Tohei Sensei and the nidai Doshu than you do from OSensei directly.

Hi Chris,

I'm going to have to get out your way and visit one of these days. Might have to spend a week. Course, if I do that, I might not want to come back here. Man, decisions, decisions. LOL.

Seriously, though, sometime next year I should be in your area. Either Portland or Seattle. Hopefully we can meet up and have some fun.

Simple solution to that is just to visit us in the fall/winter. Blah, the weather around here will drive anyone of sound mind away in no time.

Just kidding,

It was a good thing you clarified that you were just kidding. I was so moved your description of our collective plight here in the NW that I climbed to my moss covered roof and was about to plunge head first into the muddy depths I refer to as my "lawn!"

Now there's an article I haven't read yet, "Aikido and Seasonal Affective Disorder." Perhaps there is something to bathing one's self in Golden Light. Although one must be certain that it is comprised of a certain LUX I think . . .

hmmmm Aiki Golden Light Boxes! I'm going to make a million and buy a home in the tropics!

Alan, I'm sorry I missed the chance to meet you in Portland. I had to cancel my trip out for the recent Jiyushinkai seminar. Maybe I'll make the next one. Gives you some time to make those Golden Light Boxes, though.

It's a rainy day so this is just Allen's way of saying he is off to put on his happy light hat.

In order to appear as if on topic, one of the ideas we have discussed lately was that Ueshiba didn't change so much in the post war period, but rather continued to explore further nuances and make discoveries inherent in the techniques. A scenario might go something like, "OK, you have the basic mechanical tenkan down, now make the cross and do it like this. See? Isn't that cool?"
So the idea is that the basic kata do/did not change (as evidenced by Saito's teaching), but what Ueshiba showed/demonstrated changes.

It's a rainy day so this is just Allen's way of saying he is off to put on his happy light hat.

In order to appear as if on topic, one of the ideas we have discussed lately was that Ueshiba didn't change so much in the post war period, but rather continued to explore further nuances and make discoveries inherent in the techniques. A scenario might go something like, "OK, you have the basic mechanical tenkan down, now make the cross and do it like this. See? Isn't that cool?"
So the idea is that the basic kata do/did not change (as evidenced by Saito's teaching), but what Ueshiba showed/demonstrated changes.

Or . . . "Now make the cross and do it like this. See? Isn't that cool? Now you have the basic mechanical tenkan down!"

If the basic kata do/did not change (as evidenced by Saito and other's teaching) and what Ueshiba showed/demonstrated DIDN'T change . . . who and/or what changed?

I think it is pretty clear that, from an early time, Ueshiba Morihei was demonstrating something significantly different and it wasn't the waza that was significant or different (in broad strokes the jujutsu and buki waza were driving down the "same street" as others at the time) AND it wasn't necessarily the message that was different (or he wouldn't have attracted the incredibly diverse crowd of followers that he did) . . . so what was the difference that MADE the difference?

The obvious answer is: Golden Light Boxes! No really, I suppose that is a question that has to be answered by each individual if they even accept that the premise of the question is a valid one.

BTW, I'm not contradicting what Doug said I think. I am certain, and I think it rather obvious, that O-sensei had insights and growth over time. It would be kind of surprising and sad if he didn't. However, I'm guessing that technically speaking the big "thing" that turned the heads of so many diverse people, from the time he "splashed" onto the martial arts scene and throughout O-sensei's career, pretty much remained the same albeit with the addition of the inevitable legend that seems to accrue with prominent and beloved personalities.

Of course, what that "thing" was remains debatable as does who "got it" and who passed, or is passing, it on, etc.